Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Sick to death of the hype on 9/11

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by sonja, Sep 12, 2006.

  1. I am sick to death of all the crap about 9/11 that comes up year after frigging year.

    As individuals, what happened to them sucked majorly.

    As a country, it was about time.

  2. What makes the unprovoked murder of 3,000 people, with its attendant sorrows, "about time", Sonja??? Would the same thing apply if a group of medeavil lunatics did the same thing in Canberra? What about Canberra would make it äbout time"to slaughter innocent civilians???

    (and this lady supports Joel's NADS initaitive??? spare us :cry:}
  3. Did anyone watch the conspiracy theory on 9/11 on Channel 10 on Sunday night???

    It shits me that they have to examine every bit of footage looking for shadows on bellies of planes and flashes before the nose hits the plane of the buildings to make us question a terrible tragedy.

    The thing with 9/11 is that it touched so many people around the world. It was a shocking event that (I think) has destroyed a lot of the goodness in life. It has built mistrust throughout the world.

    I don't want to be around to see anything like that again, but I fear that is wishful thinking.

    No person or country deserves a wake up call like that. Destruction like that is not a calling of any religion, merely the trumped up ideals of crazy people.

    God save us
  4. The conspiracy theories aren't all that ridiculous.

    I don't care how hot the fire was on the top floors of those buildings, both of them collapsed demolition-style, each floor imploding into the one below, with little explosions on the floors before they collapsed.

    Sorry, that just doesn't happen. And it certainly wouldn't be the first time innocent people have been made martyrs for the priorities of their governments.

    Just because it's unthinkable to the rest of us doesn't mean it wasn't ordered by somebody with a shitload to gain... and the major gains from this tragedy have been US military spending, US oil interests, and a number of high profile companies with strong ties to the current US government. What have the arabs gained? Nothing but pain, distrust, war and occupation.
  5. :lastyear:

    this could turn ugly folks :popcorn:
  6. ....

    ...just sayin'.... :grin:
  7. Michaeal Mo(ron)e has a lot to answer for....:cry:

    In kinder times, people who hated their countries were called traitors..

    Today we call them journalists
  8. America needed something to make them wake up to themselves. As a country, they're arrogant and nosey. They really give me the sh!ts. It was "about time" someone gave them a bloody nose to show that they're not invincible and untouchable and that their actions have consequences.

    As to it being "unprovoked", I don't believe it. America has shoved its nose in the running of other countries where it hasn't been wanted plenty of times in the past and is still doing it.
  9. And America wonders why the arabs hate them... :roll:
  10. Do you think it's impossible that this was orchestrated from within? Do you think the US government is above suspicion?

    'Cos I don't. History has shown they have used some disgraceful means to get their way.

    I'm not saying I know what happened, just that it's worth keeping an open mind.

    That, and that I don't believe a plane crash at the top of a building would be sufficient to implode a modern skyscraper to its foundations. Surely in the face of such tragedy it's worth questioning... PARTICULARLY if you love your country.

    /Having said that, I hate America as much as the next bloke, but it's an excellent place to store the majority of Americans.
  11. This is too funny!!

    Bush's talk

    ...Doesn't America have Nuclear weapons? Aren't they the ones waging war across the globe in the name of their ego?? Places like Afghanistan want to be left to run their own place, as does Iraq. They don't want some d!ckhead like Bush telling them how to run their country. It'd be like communists invading America and saying "you're now a communist country. This is how you will run your country. This is good for you". What works for one is not a solution for all.
    By forcing us to go through stricter security measures, calling people "terrorists" for different views and ways of life and religion and generally making life miserable for a lot of others??

  12. Hornet said, "Unprovoked"... I guess that's debatable.

    IMO 9/11 will always have a JFK feel about it... we won't ever know the whole truth...

    I personally find the truth/conspiracy pros and cons fascinating.

    But I'll tell ya what I'm truly sick of? High volume posters that make glib thought-less shallow posts that don't add value to threads... but I'll defend everyone's right to make them.
  13. And just because America gives you the shits you're happy to support a bunch of murderous clowns?

    I think a quote from The Age correspondent Michael Gawenda is in order

    The whole piece is here

  14. Sorry, TonyE, but I don't follow that. No matter how many times I read over it, I can't understand how they owe anyone "more than just silence and Bush hatred".

    Are you able to translate all that journalist-talk into understandable English?
  15. Look, while i agree with amreican foreign policy = bad what you've said there is wrong wrong wrong
    with a little irony thrown in to boot

    places like iran iraq afghanistan do NOT want to be left to run their own place (their people might, their governments don't. )
    3 Iraninan parliament members were indicted for bomb blasts in buenos aires, i.e. they were governement sacntioned (look at the recent isralie debacle, iran had its hands (just as much as the US of A) all over that conflict.
    Iraq was originally given all the us weapons because it wanted ot impose power in iran. There is mass sectarian violence in all these countries. none of it related to the US. they've merely inflamed the situation and changed the balance of power (and they are certainly not absolved of most of the blame).
    Before 9/11 there were on average 72 terrorist attacks around the world per day (janes defence, 2001). not in western countries sure. but they still existed. now we have news reports about them so it seems like there is more.
    Part of the problem here is that the US will have influence regardless of that they do, Clinton was a non-violent US president who actively promoted peace and the reigion had quite an fair bit of stability for quite some time. This influence would be percieved as good. On the flip side this has lead to place like iran being financially capable of producing weapons (self sufficiently) and potentially nuclear. Iran has a history of overreaching its global areana of power it has apparent extremist views (goverment). So what do you do?
    I fear Iran having nuclear weapons, I believe they would probably use them
    I abhorr the Us invasion of Iraq.
    what to do?
    pfft i wouldnt have a clue. remember that there are also minority ethnic groups within iran, if the government wished to commit genocide - nuclear weapons (and the threat of their use) would prevent any international prevention.
    political & international foreign policy is not for me. *shivers*

    the irony is that communist countries DID impose themselves of western countries. it happened in through violence in Mozambique, Zimbabwe (mass genocide occurred here) Rwanda (mass genocide occured here), uganda, Tanzania , Vietnam and others, by proxy in Cuba, Germany(east!). This is why the "cold war" created the american foriegn policy, the fear of communist influence. the fear still drives them today.
    by the way, mass genocide occurred under western influence too.

    I certainly agree that these countries cannot have democracy imposed though. Also agree that the American foreign policy is outrageously stupid
  16. 9/11 tragic yes. regretable yes. unprovoked debatable.

    But in typical American hype it will become a thing that nobody is allowed to forget.

    More Australians know the date of American Independance Day than they do Australia Day (January 26, 1788)

    or 9/11 as opposed to the day terrorism targeted Australians in Bali (October 12, 2002 & October 1, 2005)

    My 2 bob.....

    ..............If you set yourself up as the World Police and believe yourself to be judge, juror and executioner then you should bear some responsibility for the consequences.

    and no I don't condone terrorism
  17. He's talking about the hypocrisy of people who will condemn Bush for his incompetence but refuse to acknowledge that there are a lot worse things happening. That the regimes like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein's and Iran are far far worse that the US has ever been and that these groups have an implacable hatred for the West. Afghanistan in particular had a truly repellent regime.

    Liberal minded people have been blinded by their quite reasonable dislike of Bush and a lot of American policy and refuse to acknowledge that these regimes are far worse.

    When American troops are caught committing crimes in these places they are generally tried and convicted. Some will slip through the net and there is an reluctance to pursue it on the part of the US. The difference is that when their opponents commit far worse crimes their leaders applaud and reward them.

    I don't hear any outcry from you Sonja about the car bombs that are set off in market places in Iraq where there is not an American for blocks. These are intended to terrify and intimidate the locals into not supporting the allied trops there. Would this be necessary if the level of hostility by the locals was high?

    When or if nuclear weapons are next used against a city it won't be (despite the paranoia of some people) the US that uses them - and it's just as unlikely it won't be any of the major powers either.

    As for the garbage about the US blowing up the Pentagon and the World Trade centre -how do you think they could keep this secret. We're talking hundreds of people here... If it was a cruise missile it had to be fired from somewhere. Do you think you could shut up the people needed to fuel it, transport it and launch it. It takes a lot more than one or two people to do that.

    Ask any of the ex-servicemen here if they believe that something like that could be kept a secret indefinitely. :roll:

    Sure there are a lot of things that have been done badly or incompetently by the US and its allies, but incompetence does not equate to the evils you are defending. Arrogance doesn't either - if arrogance was punishable by death then a lot of the people on this forum should be dead by now :LOL:

    The fact that Bush is a d1ckhead and an idiot shouldn't blind people to the fact that there are a lot worse out there.
  18. hehe this is hte part of conspiracy theories I love. On one hand the government is describes as X-files like in their super efficieny at keeping secrets. Men in dark suits preventing the truth from surfacing

    on the other hand the government is also a pack of incompetents who should be collecting trolleys rather than making policy decisions (note the deliberate cross thread reference here :grin: )

    I'm confused, which is it? :?


    EDIT: another thing we Aussies deliberately or accidentally forget is that we are a tiny nation, California has a greater population than Australias! consider our local religeous/ethnic/social problems then expand that into 250+Million people, it would be immensely difficult to come to balanced decisions with so many competing interests - hell, often Australia can't even do it
  19. I'm not defending what others have done. I don't agree with "terrorism" (whatever you define it as). It is fundamentally wrong.

    I've debated before why they use such tactics, and put simply it's this: They have nothing to lose. If you have no decent home, no job, no food and you are taught that america is the enemy you must fight by any means necessary, what else would you do?

    I think the "war on terror" would be better fought not by enforcing democracy on countries that may or may not want it, but by helping them get back on their feet. Getting homes for those with none, creating jobs and making these places self-sufficient. Not by going in with guns blazing and saying that the people who're running the place are terrorists.
  20. see aforementioned statement on Iran. They got up on their feet, now they are a big problem. They are proactively aggressive thank Clinton for that.(much like north korea firing ICBM tests over Japan).
    So why didn't his tactics work? I don't F%#^ing know.
    I just know it isn't easily managable and right and wrong are very very blurry